Business

Judge OKs $10 Million Settlement in Target Data Breach

Published

11 years ago

March 19, 2015

In this Dec. 19, 2013, file photo, shoppers arrive at a Target store in Los Angeles. Target has proposed to pay $10 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought against it following a massive data breach in 2013. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes, File)

STEVE KARNOWSKI, Associated Press
MICHELLE CHAPMAN, Associated Press

A Minnesota judge has endorsed a settlement in which Target Corp. will pay $10 million to settle a class-action lawsuit over a massive data breach in 2013.

U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson granted preliminary approval of the settlement after a hearing Thursday in St. Paul, Minnesota. The move will allow people to begin filing claims ahead of another hearing for final approval, which was scheduled for Nov. 10.

People affected by the breach can file for up to $10,000 with proof of their losses, including unauthorized charges, higher fees or interest rates, and lost time dealing with the problem.

“Target really needs to be commended for being willing to step up,” Magnuson said.

Target’s data breach in 2013 exposed details of as many as 40 million credit and debit card accounts and hurt its holiday sales that year. The company offered free credit monitoring for affected customers and overhauled its security systems.

The settlement would also require Minneapolis-based Target to appoint a chief information security officer, keep a written information security program and offer security training to its workers. It would be required to maintain a process to monitor for data security events and respond to such events deemed to present a threat.

“We are pleased to see the process moving forward and look forward to its resolution,” Target spokeswoman Molly Snyder said in an emailed statement.

Claims will mostly be submitted and processed online through a dedicated website.

Vincent Esades, an attorney for Target customers, said after the hearing that the settlement could end up costing Target $25 million, when attorneys’ fees and administrative costs are added in.

He said consumers will likely be able to start filing claims around April 30, and 100 million people may be eligible. Consumers can claim up to $10,000 if they can document unreimbursed losses; after those claims are paid out, the rest of the settlement funds will be divided among consumers who state under oath that they suffered a qualifying loss, but don’t have documentation. People who’ve already been fully reimbursed aren’t eligible, he said.

Esades said customers who opt out of the settlement have the right to object. Since the funds can’t be paid out until all appeals are resolved, he said, the earliest that customers would see any money would be early next year.

Target attorney David McDowell declined to comment after the hearing.

The chain has worked hard to lure back customers that were hesitant to shop there after the incident. Over the 2014 holiday season, Target offered free shipping on all items. It recently announced that it was cutting its minimum online purchase to qualify for free shipping in half to $25. And on Wednesday the retailer said it will now allow returns for up to a year for its private and exclusive brands.

Target’s bounce back from a turbulent stretch including the data breach and exit from Canada has been met with optimism on Wall Street. The retailer’s stock traded above $80 for the first time Monday, reaching another in a string of all-time highs that it began to log just before the crucial holiday shopping season began in December.

Earlier this month, Target said it would lay off about 1,700 people, eliminate another 1,400 unfilled positions and cut up to $2 billion in costs. It will also focus more on technology to boost online sales growth. The latter move will involve about $1 billion aimed at beefing up business from shoppers who are more likely to shop online.

Target shares fell 46 cents to close Thursday at $80.60. Its shares are up 35.5 percent over the past year.

___

Associated Press writer Karnowski contributed from St. Paul, Business Writer Chapman from New York.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of July 22 – 28, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of July 22 – 28, 2026

Published

18 hours ago

July 27, 2026

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Business

Starting This Summer, California Car Buyers Can Get an Instant $3500 Off the Cost of Electric Vehicles

OAKLAND POST — Beginning later this summer, eligible Californians can receive a $3,500 rebate on new zero-emission vehicles with a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of up to $50,000. Buyers purchasing qualifying used electric vehicles priced at up to $25,000 can receive a $1,750 rebate. The rebate will be applied directly at participating dealerships, allowing buyers to receive the discount immediately instead of waiting for reimbursement.

Published

1 day ago

July 26, 2026

bpusa-syndication

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

California residents purchasing their first zero-emission vehicle will soon be eligible for an instant rebate of up to $3,500 under a new state program aimed at making electric vehicles more affordable.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 168 on July 16, creating the MyFirstEV program as part of California’s 2026-27 state budget. The initiative dedicates $135.5 million in state funding for point-of-sale rebates, which participating automakers will match dollar for dollar. State officials said the combined investment will provide $270 million in savings for first-time electric vehicle buyers.

Beginning later this summer, eligible Californians can receive a $3,500 rebate on new zero-emission vehicles with a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of up to $50,000. Buyers purchasing qualifying used electric vehicles priced at up to $25,000 can receive a $1,750 rebate. The rebate will be applied directly at participating dealerships, allowing buyers to receive the discount immediately instead of waiting for reimbursement.

“With our new instant rebate program for electric vehicles, we’re making it easier for families to drive clean, breathe clean, and keep more money in their pockets,” Newsom said in a statement.

The MyFirstEV program is part of a broader $600 million investment in California’s clean transportation economy included in the state budget. The funding package also provides $150 million for the Community Air Protection Program, $19.8 million for the Clean Cars 4 All program for lower-income residents, $35 million for clean off-road equipment through the Air Quality Improvement Program, $135.5 million for the Clean Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project, and $130 million for the Carl Moyer Program to replace older heavy-duty engines with cleaner alternatives.

According to the governor’s office, the transportation investments are funded through Cap-and-Invest revenue and smog-abatement fees while maintaining a balanced state budget.

California continues to expand its zero-emission transportation network. The state surpassed 2.5 million cumulative zero-emission vehicle sales earlier this year, exceeding its original goal of 1.5 million sales by 2025. Officials also reported that California has more than 200,000 public and shared electric vehicle charging plugs statewide, in addition to an estimated 800,000 home charging stations.

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication

Business

Surveillance Pricing Fight: State Senate Debates Bill Banning Retailers from Using AI to Set Prices Based on a Buyer’s Profile

OAKLAND POST — Currently, there is no precise public data quantifying how many Black residents in California are actively affected by surveillance pricing. However, because the practice leans heavily on ZIP codes and localized demographic tracking, algorithmic pricing models frequently result in higher costs for Black and non-white communities compared to others, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital space

Published

1 day ago

July 26, 2026

bpusa-syndication

By Antonio Ray Harvey, California Black Media

Surveillance pricing—the algorithmic practice of using personal data to determine individualized costs for goods and services—is widespread in California, according to Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego). He warns that this system is actively impacting consumers across the state, and Black Californians could be specifically targeted.

Ward’s Assembly Bill (AB) 2564, the Surveillance Pricing Act, aims to prohibit businesses from using this practice.

“Surveillance pricing is a growing phenomenon that a lot of people don’t realize is already happening,” Ward told California Black Media (CBM) at the State Capitol on June 29.

On June 22, the bill passed out of the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee with a 5-2 vote and was re-referred to the Committee on Judiciary for consideration. On May 27, the Assembly voted to advance AB 2564 with a 42-21 vote.

Currently, there is no precise public data quantifying how many Black residents in California are actively affected by surveillance pricing. However, because the practice leans heavily on ZIP codes and localized demographic tracking, algorithmic pricing models frequently result in higher costs for Black and non-white communities compared to others, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital space.

Justin Brookman, a public-interest lawyer, supports AB 2564. His organization is an official sponsor of the bill. He advocates on behalf of Consumer Reports.

“We found that people shopping for the exact same item at the exact same time, and the exact same store, were getting different prices. In some cases, up to 23% higher,” Brookman said. “So, one person looking at a jar of Skippy peanut butter, it was $2.99. Another person, same exact time, it was $3.69.”

AB 2564 is primarily opposed by a coalition of corporations and technology industry associations. They argue that the bill’s language is overly broad, outlaws common consumer-friendly discounts, and creates costly litigation risks for small businesses.

Chamber of Progress – a tech industry association that lobbies for public policies that expand digital commerce and technological advances – says that banning data-driven personalization would wipe away targeted digital coupons that families count on to prolong their budgets.

In a March 18 written letter to the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection, Robert Singleton, senior director of Policy and Public Affairs for California and the U.S. West at the Chamber of Progress, urged the body to oppose AB 2564.

“We share the legislature’s concern about affordability,” Singleton wrote. “The cost of living is the top issue facing American families, and we understand the impulse to ensure consumers are getting a fair deal. But this bill risks backfiring on the families it aims to help.

Assemblymember Lori Wilson (D-Suisun City) supported and voted for the bill in the Assembly on May 27, but she still has questions about a “litigation risk” that could be costly.

“Every business or retailer that is spending their time battling courts is spending resources, which drives the cost up for everyone,” said Wilson, a member of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC).